(b) Investigate the complaint to determine if a hearing on the unfair labor practice charge is warranted. If the investigation reveals that no issue of fact or law exists, the board may dismiss the complaint; and

(c) Set the matter for hearing if the board finds in its investigation made pursuant to paragraph (b) of this subsection that an issue of fact or law exists. The hearing shall be before the board or an agent of the board not more than 20 days after a copy of the complaint has been served on the person.

(2) Where, as a result of the hearing required pursuant to subsection (1)(c) of this section, the board finds that any person named in the complaint has engaged in or is engaging in any unfair labor practice charged in the complaint, the board shall:

(a) State its findings of fact;

(b) Issue and cause to be served on such person an order that the person cease and desist from the unfair labor practice;

(d) Designate the amount and award representation costs, if any, to the prevailing party; and

(e) Designate the amount and award attorney fees, if any, to the prevailing party on appeal, including proceedings for Supreme Court review, of a board order.

(3) Where the board finds that the person named in the complaint has not engaged in or is not engaging in an unfair labor practice, the board shall:

(a) Issue an order dismissing the complaint; and

(b) Designate the amount and award representation costs, if any, to the prevailing party.

(4)(a) The board may award a civil penalty to any person as a result of an unfair labor practice complaint hearing, in the aggregate amount of up to $1,000 per case, without regard to attorney fees, if:

(A) The complaint has been affirmed pursuant to subsection (2) of this section and the board finds that the person who has committed, or who is engaging, in an unfair labor practice has done so repetitively, knowing that the action taken was an unfair labor practice and took the action disregarding this knowledge, or that the action constituting the unfair labor practice was egregious; or

(B) The complaint has been dismissed pursuant to subsection (3) of this section, and that the complaint was frivolously filed, or filed with the intent to harass the other person, or both.

(5) As used in subsections (1) to (4) of this section, person includes but is not limited to individuals, labor organizations, associations and public employers. [1973 c.536 §5; 1979 c.219 §1; 1983 c.504 §1; 1983 c.559 §1; 2013 c.663 §7]

Employ­ment Rela­tions Board, not Court of Appeals, has initial authority to determine what costs and fees, if any, are awarded for pro­ceed­ings both before ERB and on judicial review in an unfair labor practice case. Executive Depart­ment v. FOPPO, 94 Or App 754, 767 P2d 112 (1989)

Employ­ment Rela­tions Board must investigate complaint but if it finds no issue of fact or law, it may dismiss complaint without hearing. OSEA v. Salem-Keizer School Dist. 24J, 103 Or App 221, 797 P2d 375 (1990)

Employ­ment Rela­tions Board is re­quired to interpret collective bargaining agree­ments and should do so in same manner and pursuant to same rules of construc­tion as courts apply in construing contracts under common law. OSEA v. Rainier School Dist. No. 13, 311 Or 188, 808 P2d 83 (1991)

The board had authority to review, sec­tion by sec­tion, a city ordinance governing labor rela­tions between the city and its employes and to hold invalid those pro­vi­sions purporting to govern matters of predominantly state-wide concern and which were in conflict with the 1973 Act. City of Beaverton v. Intl. Assn. of Fire Fighters, 20 Or App 293, 531 P2d 730 (1975), Sup Ct review denied

Board order, defining appropriate bargaining unit and ordering representa­tion elec­tion, was interlocutory in nature and was not final order subject to judicial review within meaning of ORS 183.480 (Judicial review of agency orders). City of Hermiston v. Employ­ment Rela­tions Board, 280 Or 291, 570 P2d 663 (1977)

Public Employes Collective Bargaining Law did not bar state agency from using state time and funds to campaign against labor organiza­tion in representa­tion elec­tion. OSEA v. Depart­ment of Commerce, 34 Or App 727, 579 P2d 872 (1978)

Juvenile counselor appointed pursuant to [former] ORS 419.604 [bad link] did not acquire collective bargaining rights granted by these sec­tions where there was no showing that juvenile court judge had expressly authorized employer representatives to bargain on counselors behalf concerning terms and condi­tions of his employ­ment. Schmidt v. Jackson County Juv. Dept., 49 Or App 349, 619 P2d 1307 (1980)

Since Public Employe Collective Bargaining Act is general law addressed primarily to substantive social, economic and other regulatory objectives of this state which do not affect freedom of local community to choose its own po­lit­i­cal form, it does not mandate structural and organiza­tional arrange­ments of local govern­ments contrary to Oregon Constitu­tion, Article XI, sec­tion 2. City of Roseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters, 292 Or 266, 639 P2d 90 (1981)

States decision to enact Public Employe Collective Bargaining Act supersedes citys power to allow its voters to arbitrate unresolved labor disputes and grant of power by Oregon Constitu­tion, Article IV, sec­tion 1 to legislate by popular vote does not affect states power in this area. City of Roseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters, 292 Or 266, 639 P2d 90 (1981)

Arbitrators failure to conclude that school district violated collective bargaining agree­ment by violating statutory require­ments incorporated into agree­ment was not sufficiently egregious to be reversible as being repugnant to act. Eugene Educ. Assoc. v. Eugene School Dist 4J, 58 Or App 140, 648 P2d 60 (1982)

Employ­ment Rela­tions Board formula­tion of test for review of arbitra­tion awards in en­force­­ment pro­ceed­ings which would permit en­force­­ment of arbitrators award unless (1) parties did not, in a written contract, agree to accept such an award as final and binding or (2) en­force­­ment of the award would be contrary to public policy, was consistent with policies of Public Employe Collective Bargaining Act. Willamina Sch. Dist. 30J v. Willamina Ed. Assn., 60 Or App 629, 655 P2d 189 (1982)

Public Employe Collective Bargaining Act require­ment that juvenile court judge bargain in good faith with representatives of juvenile counselors and refrain from es­tab­lishing terms and condi­tions of counselors employ­ment in viola­tion of applicable contractual pro­vi­sions did not constitute an undue burden or in­ter­fer­ence with his judicial func­tions under [former] ORS 419.604 [bad link] or the separa­tion of powers pro­vi­sion contained in Article III, sec­tion 1 of the Oregon Constitu­tion. Circuit Court v. AFSCME, 61 Or App 311, 657 P2d 1237 (1983), affd 295 Or 542, 669 P2d 314 (1983)

Employ­ment Rela­tions Board did not exceed statutory authority under Public Employes Collective Bargaining Act in designating appropriate bargaining unit which consists of police dispatchers who are employes who can strike and police of­fi­cers who are forbidden from striking. City of Canby v. Canby Police Associa­tion, 68 Or App 317, 680 P2d 1033 (1984), Sup Ct review denied

Statutory purpose to provide uniform basis for employe organizing and bargaining would be subverted by holding that statute authorizing county civil service system supersedes collective bargaining re­quired by this Act. AFSCME v. Clackamas County, 69 Or App 488, 687 P2d 1102 (1984)

Board had authority to order restitu­tion where union collected fair share pay­ments from nonunion public employees without complying with safeguards instituted to protect employees rights of free speech and associa­tion. Elvin v. OPEU, 313 Or 165, 832 P2d 36 (1992)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

School law on media­tion as an exclusive pro­ce­dure, (1971) Vol 35, p 961; seniority as a related economic issue, (1972) Vol 35, p 1134; legality of binding arbitra­tion in public employ­ment collective bargaining, (1972) Vol 36, p 18; validity of collective bargaining agree­ments between county intermediate educa­tion district and local educa­tion associa­tion on transfer of sick leave, (1975) Vol 37, p 328; authority of teachers to strike during contract year in absence of collective bargaining agree­ments, and to engage in picketing, (1975) Vol 37, p 732

Law Review Cita­tions

Notes of Decisions

Effect of Public Employe Rela­tions Act is to modify authority of Personnel Division so that, while division retains responsibility for es­tab­lishing general job salary grades and classifica­tions, specific salary within each range which is paid to employe in public employe bargaining unit is subject to negotia­tion or arbitra­tion under terms of this chapter. AFSCME v. Executive Dept., 52 Or App 457, 628 P2d 1228 (1981), Sup Ct review denied

3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each
listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals
relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.